The new Thunderbird Winter Sports Centre is currently applying for an amendment to their liquor-primary licence. The matter will be coming before Metro Vancouver's Electoral Area committee for approval this Friday and there seems to be a significant hurdle in the way: as a result of past violations, the RCMP does not support it.
Thunderbird Arena currently has a liquor-primary licence which covers the seating area in Father Bauer arena as well as the location of the former Thunderbar. When the new facility was erected around Father Bauer arena, the new areas were not covered under the existing liquor licence. As a result, UBC Athletics is applying for an amendment to the existing liquor-primary licence to cover the seating area and floor of the new arena. This application is not only in UBC's interests, VANOC wants it too. It's in the venue agreement, and so UBC does as VANOC wants.
As required by Metro Vancouver, some public meetings were held to discuss the plans and get feedback. Predictably, and in this case fortunately, the UNA objected to some of the items in the application. Because the process of obtaining an amendment to a liquor licence is tedious, Athletics threw in everything they think they might want at some time in the future, even if they don't need or want it at present, to leave themselves more flexibility. This resulted in some absurdities, such as proposed serving hours stretching all the way from 9 am until 2 am, and the licencing of an outdoor patio area that they currently don't have any use for.
The 9 am start is interesting to me; I don't think there was any particular reason for it other than that they were asking for everything they could. By doing so, UBC is now on the record as not objecting to morning drinking, starting as early as 9. On the application form the reason put forth for the early start time was so that people can drink mimosas – maybe it should have listed Beerios instead.
Regardless, things were going relatively smoothly until the RCMP dropped a bombshell. In a four-page letter (linked above; highly recommended reading), S/Sgt Kevin Kenna outlines some serious violations that have occurred at past events in the arena and that they do not feel Athletics is capable of living up to their responsibilities. What happened to prompt this strong objection?
"In order to promote events in the interim while the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch is considering the application, UBC has been granted a Temporary Change to its existing licence in order to allow a beer garden during certain events at the arenas. Management of the Temporary Change licence has been problematic and the Licensing Branch has had to rescind its approval after complaints about beer garden use at a recent concert." - David Boote, planner with Metro Vancouver
So Athletics got a Temporary Change, but that was rescinded due to poor management. At the next concert, they instead got a Special Occasion Licence (SOL). How did that work out?
"At a recent event where a Special Occasion License was obtained for a beer garden, there was such blatant abuse of liquor service (operating two beer gardens, poor security, over service) that all future events were not allowed to apply for a Special Occasion License." - S/Sgt Kenna, RCMP
Strike two. Without the Temporary Change licence and no chance at an SOL, the next event had no alcohol service. Problem solved, right?
"Despite the fact that the next concert was [non-alcoholic], both drugs and alcohol did make their way into the event. The police encountered minors in possession and consuming both alcohol and narcotics. As well, there were many inebriated persons either on the main floor or in the stands or back stage. Numerous patrons were observed smoking marijuana in the "mosh pit" as well as parts of the stands. During this event a male was "head butted" and required an ambulance to take him to the hospital. Before this event even started, there was a lot of "pre-drinking" outside the Centre and in the nearby Thunderbird Parkade." - S/Sgt Kenna, RCMP
Well, shit. There's no way these people should get a liquor licence. Ultimately though, the RCMP concludes they are willing to work with UBC to resolve the outstanding issues, but until it is all resolved, the RCMP does not support any liquor licence amendments. Brian Sullivan penned a response acknowledging past problems and promising to do better, but also trying to claim that they have an "established record of success" running licenced events. Can you imagine the fallout if such serious violations occurred repeatedly at student-organized events? I can't imagine saying "my bad" and promising to do better in the future would get you anywhere at all with the RCMP and the University. Someone please teach me how UBC gets away with this stuff.
All of this makes me worried. With liquor issues, one bad apple spoils the whole bushel. The RCMP would like to enforce every group the same way so they are not seen as playing favorites, though this doesn't happen in practice. While this approach is both fair and unfair at the same time, the result is that a small subset of troublemakers has the potential to cause real problems to the majority of groups that do follow the rules surrounding liquor regulations. Of course Athletics has promised to clean up their act, but why didn't that happen when any of the major infractions occurred in the first place? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Not only that, these are only the issues only from Thunderbird arena. Athletics also gets SOLs for Varsity games and does not follow the rules in getting those either! Their track record is established and it's dismal. Students get a bad rep for being irresponsible with alcohol but the worst violations are arising elsewhere.
The other way I see this liquor-primary licence as a problem is that currently the RCMP puts a cap on SOLs, based on how many people are supposedly attending these events in a given night. Once that cap is hit, they stop giving out SOLs for that day. For example, the RCMP will not approve SOLs for August 14th due to the Warped Tour occurring at Thunderbird Stadium even though the Warped Tour will not have any liquor service. Any night with a large event at the arena will lower the capacity for student-run events. I am also going to assume that the revenue from these concerts is going into Athletics's bottom line but that very little of it ends up going back into student programs. I would love to see evidence which suggests I'm wrong about this, but I don't think I will ever see that. The university is catering primarily to non-students, having negative impacts on student-run events; this is the War on Fun in a nutshell.
Finally, this warms my heart:
It is my belief that the UBC Athletics Department is moving too fast with their planned events at Thunderbird Centre, especially music concerts; and that profit is the main objective rather than ensuring that community interests are taken into consideration and looked after now and in the future. - S/Sgt Kenna, RCMP
Sing it, brother! This is the gospel I have been preaching far and wide. I don't want to start off on an even longer rant, but the ancillary model for UBC Athletics is broken. Too much of the department's attention is focused on increasing revenues without considering whether it is actually serving the UBC community effectively. There is not nearly enough accountability to those ultimately paying the bills and shouldering the impacts. I am immensely pleased to see that others see it the same way as well and I hope UBC is paying attention.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Did The Killers Kill the Liquor at Thunderbird Arena?
Sunday, June 21, 2009
More from the CIS AGM
The Coles notes version of this post was already published: CIS restricts dual membership with NCAA.
Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS), the organization that governs high-performance sport at the post-secondary level, held its Annual General Meeting from June 8-12 in Gatineau, Quebec.
When UBC decided to defer its decision on NCAA membership until at least 2010, one of the reasons cited was unresolved issues reagarding CIS. In the context of potential NCAA membership, the three main issues identified were (1) Dual membership rules, (2) Athletic Financial Aid rules and (3) Quality of competition within Canada West. The CIS AGM is the only time of year where these issues can be dealt with formally by the CIS membership.
Due to my inordinate interest in athletics at UBC, and the NCAA isssue, I went to check it out.
FYI, the 90-page agenda package is here, including all of the committee reports and background documentation for the few of you who might care. I will pull out things that are more pertinent. Also, the CIS put up their own summary of happenings at the AGM. Their summary is very incomplete, so keep reading.
DAY 1
Day 1 started with some of the more preliminary activities: approval of minutes, and reports from individuals and committees.
Dick White, Athletic Director at the University of Regina and outgoing CIS president, and Marg McGregor, CIS CEO, gave opening remarks. Both of their speeches addressed many of the points contained in the CIS's Ten Point Plan (TPP). This is a collection of priorities which are designed to help the CIS achieve its vision of being the "destination of choice for Canadian student-athletes." It is essentially their version of a strategic planning document and was a very central theme throughout the meeting.
Both speeches were based around the idea that the CIS is not meeting its potential and that changes must be made to help the CIS improve. Dick White spoke mostly about the future and about the need for member buy-in to make change happen while Marg McGregor, who at times was extremely quotable, summarized the CIS's recent activities. In reference to the TPP, she said she wants it to be "CIS's elevator music: it's always playing in the background." When addressing the issue of the NCAA she portrayed them as Wal-Mart, with CIS being the mom and pop corner store.
For the most part, committee reports did not deviate significantly from the written reports in the agenda package. A quick wrap-up of some of the developments from the speeches and reports:
- Edmonton's bid for the 2015 Universiade lost out to Gwangju, South Korea
- The CIS launched new logos (top) to replace their previous one (bottom)
- A planned expansion of the Women's Basketball championship to 16 teams was pushed back for another year. The stated reason was prudence due to the current economic situation.
- CIS secured a major sponsorship deal with Research in Motion
- They are trying to catch up to new media with a Facebook page, a Twitter feed, a Flickr page and a channel on Youtube.
A few things that are on the horizon for the upcoming year:
- Clint Hamilton, UVic's athletic director, taking over as CIS president.
- Conduct a thorough exploration of how the CIS can partner with the CCAA (Canadian Colleges Athletic Association). This is awaiting government funding.
- Continue trying to adapt how the CIS deals with media. With many writers now doing blogs (holla!), press releases may not be the best way anymore.
- Leverage big national championships (basketball, football) in order to ensure a minimum level of service to national championships across all sports.
- Continue looking at governance reform and financial aid rules in the CIS.
The afternoon of Day 1 was then devoted to discussion sessions. The structure of the AGM is a little curious, since there is a lot of time devoted to these sessions, but at the same time, there are very few bona fide motions coming to the floor to deal with those issues. Lots of interesting ideas regarding eligibility, CIS championships, branding and governance were expressed, but whether any follow-up will occur on these ideas is anyone's guess.
DAY 2
Day 2 started off with a presentation from UWO's football coach Larry Haylor, on Canada's participation in the 2011 World Football Championship, which would in all likelihood involve CIS football players. After that, there was a presentation on a new system for locating football and hockey players in order to administer drug tests.
On a side note, the stats surrounding drug testing in the CIS really surprised me. Last year, four players were caught doping: one for steroids, three for marijuana use. My initial reaction was that university sport in Canada must be very clean, since there was only one violation (I disregard the pot violations since I'm sure it was not used for the purpose of boosting athletic performance). A closer look at the numbers seems to point in a different direction: the CIS boasts having over 10,000 student-athletes across Canada, but only 269 drug tests were administered last year. I realize administering these tests is probably costly, but it strikes me as being extremely low! Is the lack of violations really because the players are clean, or might it have to do with inadequate testing?
At long last, the discussion turned toward my raison d'être, the NCAA.
Background: A motion was brought to the 2008 CIS AGM which would have prohibited all dual membership. This would have been a very problematic policy not just for UBC, but for a number of schools in Canada. Ultimately, this motion was laid on the table while more discussion on the issue could occur. In the year since, during the entire process of examining the NCAA issue, UBC has been waiting patiently to find out what, if anything, the CIS would say about dual membership restrictions. In the last year, the CIS commissioned a report about the NCAA which was based upon both research and feedback received from members (I haven't read it). The NCAA was also discussed in depth at an April 2009 members meeting. The results of that meeting, in the eyes of the CIS board, was a call to action. Theresa Hanson (director of varsity sports at UBC) told me that in her opinion, the results of the April members meeting were inconclusive at best, only reaffirming that the NCAA was a divisive subject. Nevertheless, the motion that finally came from the CIS is board was:
The first speaker was Dr. David Murphy, athletic Director of SFU. He said that the posturing coming from the CIS was that they are trying to go forward with strength and boldness, but when he looks at the motion it reeks of insecurity and protectionism. In sports, all the schools in the room are in the business of competition. Why, then, should the CIS be afraid of competition, rather than using it as a catalyst to step up their own game? He also brought up that in the academic realm, being worldly and looking globally is considered a virtue. It's recognized as a good thing to broaden people's education and this motion flies in the face of that idea. He added that he doesn't think the NCAA will ever result in a mass migration of schools and that SFU is a very special case. To him, this motion is simply a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived threat.
The response from Katie Sheahan (Concordia) was that she didn't think this motion was borne out of a defensive reaction, but instead that it is the responsible thing to do since the NCAA has the potential to seriously damage the financial health of the CIS. She also held the view that Dr. Murphy had oversimplified the issue and that the CIS board truly feels that the motion reflects the feelings of members at the April 2009 meeting.
Ivan Joseph (Ryerson) then expressed his view that the CIS's "destination of choice" mantra was more about keeping Canadian student athletes in Canada, not necessarily in the CIS. In that sense, this motion would not help that goal. To him, allowing institutions to have more options would also give Canadian student-athletes more options, hopefully keeping more of them in Canada.
Gord Grace (Windsor) brought up an interesting point that CIS membership is separate from membership in the regional associations (AUS, QSSF, OUA and Canada West). His example was thus: supposing Windsor joined the NCAA and were prohibited from being CIS members, they would still be allowed to do all their league play in the OUA. In theory, Windsor's football team could end up winning the OUA championship, but be ineligible to play in the Vanier Cup because Windsor was not in the CIS. If something like that were to ever occur, it would be embarrassing.
Ken Schildroth (York) asked why this motion applied only to the NCAA and not the NAIA.
Dick White responded that the CIS board felt there was a clear distinction between the NCAA and the NAIA in terms of how powerful their brands are. The NAIA does not pose a big threat to the CIS, but the NCAA does due to their extremely high level of recognition. As a result they didn't think it was appropriate to lump them together.
Theresa Hanson (UBC) had the floor next and acknowledged that the NCAA issue is extremely complex, but that one of the great things about the CIS has been its respect for the autonomy of the individual institutions. If UBC ultimately decides that the NCAA is best, UBC's autonomy should be respected.
Clint Hamilton (UVic, incoming CIS president) wanted to make it clear that the CIS board has been devoting a lot of time to this issue and has been taking it quite seriously. Through the entire process, he has repeatedly heard how it's good for institutions, but has never heard any argument about why it's good for the CIS. The board wants to do what's best for the CIS, and the evidence seems to show it would be damaging to CIS from a number of angles (ex. sponsorship, marketing, recruiting) by allowing a stronger brand to get a foothold here.
Dick White (Regina, outgoing CIS president) then acknowledged that the motion may appear to be protectionist, but in his opinion that would only be true if this was done in isolation. To him, it's just one part of a bigger campaign to strengthen the CIS. Allowing the NCAA to enter Canada would put the CIS in a position of weakness and the fact that schools want to put some of their sports in the NCAA and some in the CIS says to him that the CIS is viewed merely a league of convenience. He also stated that he didn't think this is an issue of autonomy since there are many instances where people give up autonomy. He encouraged everyone to support the motion and thought it was one of the most important motions in a number of years
Pat Murray (CIS VP Marketing) pointed out that they just want schools to show commitment to the CIS; that you're either in or you're out.
David Murphy (SFU) took the floor again to express his worry that there may be a lot of misinformation out there and that SFU's move to the NCAA won't be painless for anyone involved, including SFU. They just support the ability to choose. Rather than trying to shut out competition, the CIS just needs to learn to adapt and will ultimately be successful.
Marg McGregor (CIS CEO) then took the opportunity to respond to a number of point that had been raised. She acknowledged that the CIS was being protective of their interests and that they were doing so in the best interests of the CIS, stating unequivocally, "I make no apologies for trying to protect the CIS." She also acknowledged that choice is important at the institutional level, but that everyone also needs to take the national interests into account. On the topic of looking globally, she said that the CIS already has rules in place about foreign players, so recognizing and protecting Canadian interests is nothing new. She ended by warning that if the motion was defeated, it would make the CIS a weak and vulnerable organization.
The last word went to Leo MacPherson (St. FX) who said that his institution, and all those Atlantic Canada, were largely ambivalent about this issue since there was no threat of losing AUS members to the NCAA. He urged every school who felt ambivalent about this motion to show their support to the CIS board and vote in favour.
Phew. So there you have it. I was quite surprised that UBC did not speak up more, or offer a more compelling argument than the need for institutional autonomy. (Bob Philip was not present to give his take: he had to fly back to Vancouver earlier in the day.) However, at the same time, I kinda doubt it would have made any difference. It really seemed like everyone had made up their mind beforehand; no one was about to be swayed either way by the arguments put forth. That comes as no surprise. That's the pattern you see whenever you talk about the NCAA in Canada.
The two discussion periods that followed were about Athletic Financial Aid (AFA) and partnering with the CCAA. I won't go into to much detail, suffice it to say that it seems unlikely that there will be any significant movement on the AFA front in the near future. They are going to 'explore' a flexible scholarship model, but the AFA committee did a survey of schools and found that there is little traction for major changes to AFA policy.
In the afternoon of day 2 is when the voting finally occurred (like I said, AGM structure is a bit odd where discussion and voting happen separately). For the record:
CIS members are not permitted to play in the NCAA in sports that are offered by CIS.
For: 55 Against: 20
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CIS members are not permitted to play in the NAIA in sports that are offered by CIS, unless they also compete in that sport within CIS, effective September 2011.
For: 64 Against: 19
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CIS support in principle the exploration of a flexible scholarship model in concert with striking a Board Task Force to do further study and review to address the challenges and issues that CIS members have identified.
Carried
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The AFA motion is pretty toothless, but the NAIA motion has the potential to further complicate things for UBC. Theresa Hanson identified Cross Country as the sport it would affect most.
So what's next for UBC on the NCAA front? As far as I can tell, not much. Trying to get some clarity on accreditation seems to be the only major outstanding issue that needs to be addressed. (Of course, I still consider the distribution of funds from the athletic fee, and the structure and transparency of UBC Athletics major outstanding issues that need to be addressed - but I am probably alone on that.)
What will be helpful over the next year is that SFU, apparently completely undeterred by the accreditation requirement, already submitted their application. Over the next year, UBC will be able to simply watch from the sidelines to see how the application process unfolds. During that time, it may be possible to reach the point where nothing except careful deliberation is standing in the way of hearing the outcome. However, I'm not sure anyone is in a hurry to get there quite yet.
Friday, June 12, 2009
CIS restricts dual membership with NCAA
The Ubyssey-edited version of this can be found at ubyssey.ca.
Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS), the organization which governs high-performance athletics at Canadian universities, sent a bold message to schools looking to join the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) at their annual general meeting on Thursday. Voting 55-20 in favour, CIS members instituted a policy which places stringent restrictions on schools who pursue membership in both the CIS and the NCAA. Under the new rule, member schools are only allowed to play in the NCAA in sports not offered by the CIS.
“The NCAA is a gigantic, multi-sport business entity and quite frankly the CIS is not. So we believe that it could be a threat to the existence of CIS and we reacted accordingly,” said Dick White, University of Regina athletic director and outgoing CIS president. “I hope it at least creates some pause for thought, but I also understand that the school and its athletic director and its president will ultimately make a decision which they think is best.”
The two schools in question are UBC and SFU, the only CIS members who have openly expressed interest in the NCAA. SFU's senior athletic director Dr. David Murphy spoke passionately against the membership restrictions during the meeting, arguing that it “reeks of insecurity and protectionism,” and that the CIS shouldn't shy away from competition, but rather use it as an opportunity to better itself and grow stronger. Dr. Murphy expressed his regret that the new rule was adopted, but that SFU's plans are already in motion:“The [NCAA] application form is in. We wait, and we find out in July whether or not we have been accepted.”
For UBC, which deferred its decision regarding NCAA application until at least 2010, this provides one more piece of the puzzle. Uncertainty over what action, if any, the CIS would take regarding dual membership has long been one of the sticking points in the university's consideration of NCAA membership. While the new rule is not an outright ban on dual membership, it essentially makes the pursuit of the NCAA an all-or-nothing proposal since the pool of sports offered by the NCAA but not by the CIS is very narrow.
“We're not saying 'you can't join',” explained CIS CEO Marg McGregor. “UBC and SFU and any university that wants to can join. But as a result of that, we will not be the league of convenience. We want to be the league of choice.”
The issue of personal choice was indeed one of the key reasons UBC opposed the new rule. “I speak in favour of dual membership because I believe it does provide universities choices,” said Theresa Hanson, director of varsity athletics at UBC. “From a dual membership perspective, we could still make a commitment to CIS sport, continue some sports in Canada as well as move a considerable number of sports to the NCAA.”
UBC and SFU were not the only schools to oppose the new rule, with a handful of other schools also expressing their disapproval. Ivan Joseph of Ryerson opposed the change because he thought allowing dual membership would enable more Canadian athletes to stay at Canadian schools. Jennifer Brenning from Carleton was also opposed, pointing to the fact that the CIS now has three different sets of dual membership rules depending on whether you want to play in the NCAA, the NAIA, or the CCAA. Before this year, the CIS had no policy at all on dual membership.
While uncertainty surrounding dual membership has finally come to an end, the result doesn't make UBC's NCAA decision any easier. One of the biggest issues, academic accreditation, remains unresolved and Theresa Hanson acknowledges that the closer you examine the issue of NCAA membership, the more complex it becomes.“I think it provides more challenges, the outcome, but I really think that [Toope] will make a decision that's in the best interests of the university and of our student athletes.”
Friday, February 8, 2008
Sterling example of effective advocacy - Universities Allied for Essential Medicines
Students spend alot of time agonizing over how to be effective advocates for change. Emma Preston, a founding member of UBC UAEM, and this year's BC Rhodes Scholar, tells of how this group made the university fall head over heals for them.
Billions of people, primarily in poor countries, lack access to lifesaving medicines; millions more suffer from diseases for which no adequate treatment exists. Universities can change this. Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM) is a hands-on student organization that focuses on changing university policies in order to increase access to essential medicines in developing countries (http://www.essentialmedicine.org/). Our mission is two fold. Firstly, to urge universities to ensure that biomedical end products, such as drugs, developed in campus labs are accessible in developing countries, and secondly, to facilitate and promote research on neglected tropical diseases, or those diseases predominantly affecting people who are too poor to constitute a market attractive to private-sector research and development investment. University scientists are major contributors to the drug development pipeline. At the same time, universities have an avowed commitment to advancing the public good. As members of these universities, our fundamental goal is to hold them to this commitment. With a small but committed group of students, representative of the diverse student body at UBC and with some key supporters in the local and international community, we weren’t afraid to think big.
The UBC chapter of UAEM has been active for over two years and is part of a growing global movement of students dedicated to making research and science more globally responsible (http://ubcuaem.wordpress.com/). This past November, UBC announced it self as the first university in Canada to commit to providing people in poor countries with easier access to its innovations, stating that “ensuring global access to discoveries and technologies developed at UBC is an important element in achieving the TREK vision. UBC technologies have the potential to generate significant societal impacts, and our technologies relating to the advancement of health, the protection of the environment and the promotion of sustainability have the most obvious benefits for a global society.” The press release noted Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM) as "catalysts" for the decision (http://www.uilo.ubc.ca/global.asp).
The UBC Chapter of UAEM (pronounced “you-aim”) was founded in 2005 by Patricia Kretz, currently a fourth year UBC medical student. Initially, the group consisted of a small number of concerned students meeting at random locations about once a week. A mixed bag of grad students, law students, med students and undergrads, we met everywhere from coffee shops to basements to the west atrium of the Life Sciences Institute. It soon became clear that when it comes to understanding access to essential medicines there are many difficult concepts, jargon and acronyms to familiarize oneself with before anything starts to make sense. There is no doubt that there is a steep learning curve. To address this concern and reach out to the greater student body, UAEM UBC held its first “teach-in” in the fall of 2006 at UBC’s Medical Student Alumni Centre. The aim of this afternoon was to go over the basics of intellectual property, licensing and patent law, the neglected tropical disease research gap, metrics (a.k.a. how a university measures its success), and what university students can do to address these issues.
Another key element in achieving our goals was communicating with UBC faculty and administration. One aspect of this was collecting signatures for the Philadelphia Consensus Statement (PCS), a document that was drafted at the UAEM international meeting at the University of Pennsylvania in the fall of 2006. In a nutshell, the PCS is a document that outlines UAEM’s main goals and ‘signing on’ acts statement of support for these goals. In addition to a number of caring and dedicated faculty, UAEM was fortunate to gain the support of a number of big name global health/humanitarian ‘celebrities’ such as Paul Farmer, Jeffrey Sachs, James Orbinski and, a proud UAEM UBC signature, Stephen Lewis. In this regard it was very helpful to be a chapter of a larger international group and emphasized the benefits of being a multidisciplinary student group in which everyone could use their unique skills and contacts to their full potential.
With a member base and support from the local and international community, we received support from the Alma Mater Society (AMS) and eventually became an AMS club. We also established an advisory board consisting of a diverse array of individuals who had acted as mentors along the way including a journalist, physicians, a number of faculty members and representatives from the University Industry Liaison Office (UILO). With their support and the help of one of our more politically involved members, Gina Eom (of UBC Insider fame), we were able to arrange a series of meetings with President Stephen Toope, VP Research John Hepburn, University Industry Liaison Office (UILO) President Angus Livingstone and Technology Transfer Officer Barbara Campbell.
While we initially met with some valid resistance, the potential of what were proposing and its implications with regards to the Trek 2010 goals of global citizenship were hard to deny. Barbara Campbell emerged as our UILO champion and we were incredibly fortunate to have her dedicated support and commitment. We soon realized that you can’t use a one size fits all global access strategy for all technologies developed at UBC. Developing necessary guidelines and applying global access principles requires a lot of hard work and time on the part of the technology transfer officers at the UILO. As such we were very excited to find that the ideas behind these principles have already influenced the licensing of three new UBC technologies: a peer-to-peer software technology with applications in medical school curriculum delivery, an E. coli vaccine technology, and a new less-toxic formulation of antifungal and anti-Leishmania drug Amphotericin B.
While are starting to see the fruits of our labour in full ripeness, there is still a lot of work to be done. We are working towards developing undergraduate and medical school curriculum on neglected tropical diseases and starting a fund to finance research on these abandoned ailments. We are also in the process of starting chapters at other Canadian universities. As much as ever, we are welcome new members and support within the UBC community with open arms. If you are interested in attending our next meeting or in just finding out more information please don’t hestitate to contact us at: ubc.uaem@gmail.com
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Issue of the Day: The Musqueam Issue
Now for something a little more controversial. Somebody who I work fairly close with recently questioned my leftist politics. That’s fair – I feel quite comfortable in the bureaucracy of the AMS, and I feel quite comfortable trying to balance the 42 000 different opinions of AMS members, and I even support many CASA policies. But after reading Jesse Ferrara’s post on the Musqueam issue, I agreed that it was something that should get some more discussion in this year’s election. And frankly, at the most recent BoG debates, there are a few things that should be clarified.
More behind the jump...
A History of First Nations Oppression:
There is a certain camp of people, in which I identify, who might describe the history of First Nations people in BC like this:
There were no “signed” treaties in BC that handed the land over to the Crown – in fact, the conditions under which these other “treaties” were signed across Canada are sketchy at best. There was also no war that was won that legitimizes the Queen of England‘s right to let the Canadian government oversee this land. The only thing that did happen was that a lot of Europeans came to this land with racist, imperialist assumptions that the people who lived here were “backwards and uncivilized” and that was some sort of justification for why we could take it over.
Over the years, those racist assumptions permeated into the minds and hearts of almost every Canadian, excusing policies that forced children to leave their homes, renounce their Native identity and stop speaking their Native language. What followed were decades of white people actively destroying Native culture and history, and any of its power and meaning. Families fell apart, survivors of the Residential Schools were taught to hate themselves and histories were not just being lost, but violently rewritten. We built entire institutions that systematically destroyed Native culture and kept the First Nations people down through a reinforcing cycle of economic and social poverty.
Now, people think that we should just forget all that: “I didn’t take over their land, its not my fault.” Well, that’s nice. But I for one feel perfectly capable of taking responsibility for the incomprehensibly terrible things that my ancestors did, and I feel perfectly comfortable doing whatever it takes to rectify the situation, whatever it will take for First Nations communities to heal and rebuild.
Systemic oppression is about systems, structures and societies that are built on keeping certain people down, certain perspectives out, and certain power-structures in place. Accepting the First Nations issue as an oppression issue is about acknowledging the decades of violence that has been launched at Aboriginal communities.
Land Claims issues:
The basic principles to rectifying the relationship between Canada and the First Nations communities are outlined in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP): recognition, respect, sharing and responsibility. We must recognize that the Aboriginal people are the original inhabitants of this land, and no matter how you want to look at it, that grants them certain rights, and we must recognize them as nations, on par with the nation of Canada. We must respect their tradition, their history, their culture and their wishes, the way they define themselves and the future that they define for themselves. We must share this land. And lastly, we must take responsibility for the years of violent oppression, it is our responsibility for the current relationship and state of affairs.
Understanding current First Nations issues, like current land claims, requires a deep appreciation for these basic tenants. Land claims in BC are about negotiating use of this land on equal terms, land which has never been negotiated fairly up until this time. It is not necessarily about “living off the land” – although most Indigenous cultures have a strong cultural tradition that is linked to particular land. To assume that all Native people want to return back to some sort of pre-Settler lifestyle is racist. Thus, if the Musqueam nation wants to build condos on the Golf Course – by all means, who are we to say what they should do? Land claims are about reconciliation of past injustices – and we need to respect the terms of reconciliation that they define.
The Musqueam Nation and UBC:
We have to recognize the First Nations people as legitimate nations, with legitimate governments. In this sense, why would the Musqueam nation negotiate with UBC? The Musqueam Nation negotiates with the nation of Canada. UBC just happens to be the governmental institution that sits on their land. The notion of putting a Musqueam leader on the Board of Governors is absurd because it is tokenistic. It doesn’t address the heart of the issue at all. It is a false gesture. Until UBC is willing to address Indigenous issues head on, with a serious commitment to change things and rectify things, then a BoG seat is entirely meaningless. A serious approach would question how we perpetuate racist and anti-indigenous assumptions in our institution. It would question how we, as an institution of higher learning that is representative of advances in human society, continue to oppress and colonize First Nations people.
UBC’s current approach is to increase access of First Nations people to the ‘incredible education of UBC’ – aka bringing more FN students into UBC. Education can be one of the greatest tools for empowerment and freedom. It also can be one of the greatest tools for domination and repression. Unless UBC’s educational experience is willing to take on this question, and change to be anti-oppressive, then again, this solution is tokenistic, and side-steps the real issues, and even perpetuates the colonial relationship. What would an empowering education look like for an Aboriginal student? Well, it would be an Aboriginal education, taught from an Aboriginal perspective by Aboriginal people. It would not be a Western interpretation of Aboriginal history. It would force white students to engage in that Aboriginal history from an Aboriginal perspective. It wouldn’t just be a pathetic attempt at being more “welcoming” and “supportive” of First Nations students. UBC’s approach doesn’t critically ask, how does the white institution of UBC needs to change in order to end the oppression of Aboriginal people within its doors, and in society as a whole.
The Issue as it relates to the AMS:
You may have read in a recent issue of the Ubyssey that the AMS failed a motion to support a negotiated settlement for the Musqueam Nation in the recent golf course issue. I think it was a very sad day, and a missed opportunity to publicly support the Musqueam nation. The AMS, like UBC, really has no role in “building relationships” with a nation – would any true representative of the United States come deal with the AMS? But there are things that the AMS can do. Firstly, the AMS can do a better job of publicly supporting the Musqueam nation in their struggle. The other thing the AMS can do is better represent its First Nations students – this would require more Aboriginal representation within the various facets of the AMS, better resources and services for FN students, outreach and relevance. Of course, its a bit of a Catch-22, because there aren't many reasons currently for First Nations students to get involved in the AMS, which makes it difficult to build in those relevant resources and programs. For example, there should be an Aboriginal Student Centre in the Resource Groups. But again, until the AMS is willing to take a critical look at how we actively perpetuate an oppressive relationship, then we aren't doing much better than UBC. The AMS will have to engage in the issue head-on, work with Aboriginal students to define what their needs are and how the AMS can support that, and then help Aboriginal students to make it happen.
Issue of the Day: Sustainability
I like to think of myself as an environmentalist, and its definitely how I got my start in student politics – co-chairing the Student Environment Centre for two years. Those two years were spent feeling frustrated and overwhelmed – partly because of the generally poor organizational structure of the SEC (and other Resource Groups), and partly because I was too idealistic and didn’t know a thing about campus politics, the AMS, coalition-building, strategic planning, and well, activism.
I still feel like I don’t really have a handle on environmental issues at UBC. So, what is it all about? Is it just PR or are we making a difference? Is UBC really leading the way in sustainability? And where does the AMS fit in all of this…
Some answers to these rhetorical questions… behind the jump…
A History of Sustainability:
In 1997, the University passed its Sustainability policy, committing to creating a Sustainability Office and creating a strategy that would guide its sustainability efforts. In 1997, this was huge, and still something to be proud of – a lot of very organized student groups across the country are still fighting with their University’s to develop a recycling program, let alone a sustainability office. Then Director of Sustainability Frida Pagani along with Geoff Atkins (AVP Land & Building Services) and I’m sure others convinced UBC that they could save millions of dollars in energy costs by retrofitting buildings (making buildings on campus more energy-efficient), which could fund the sustainability office’s operations. UBC agreed, and there you have the lasting marriage between UBC and Sustainability.
But that was really all the sustainability office had to offer save for a few educational and administrative programs which have mostly been, in my opinion, ineffective. UBC also likes taking a lot of credit for the U-Pass, and the associated increase in transit ridership – all too often forgetting the role that the AMS played in securing that program for students.
Recently, a new Director was appointed to the Sustainability Office, Charlene Easton. She comes from the corporate sustainability sector, and brings a very different flavor, but I think one that is setting the Sustainability office in much bolder new directions. We’ll have to wait and see, she’s only been in the position for less than a year. But, Charlene is very interested in building partnerships with students, particularly the AMS. Some of the new initiatives: creating something comparable to LEED standards for the market housing being built in U-Town; creating a coalition of student groups on campus called the Climate Action Partnership, coming together to create a framework that will get UBC to climate neutrality (also known as carbon neutrality).
What’s the problem?
Well, technically you could say there isn’t one. UBC has an incredible compost and recycling program, we boast the amazing educational and food security efforts of the UBC Farm (although it took a lot of lobbying to get UBC to recognize its value, which isn’t quite done), and we get a lot of international recognition for our efforts. The reality is, we could be doing a LOT better, and the push should be coming from students. The problem, in my opinion, is with us, the students.
We should be producing reports on various environmental issues, we should be writing letters, lobbying and building coalitions. We should be planting gardens in the middle of main mall. We should be demanding that no more trees are cut down for market housing, that more green space is preserved, and that all buildings are LEED platinum.
It takes all the energy we can muster to put on the Student Environment Centre conference – this year it was great too… but it didn’t create any larger dialogue about what the next big things that should be happening in campus sustainability. When I was co-chair, I was an idealist who didn’t know a thing about the science behind anything I was talking about, and I thought that “awareness campaigns” had meaning. We tried to hold stuff swap events that mostly just highlight the incredible amounts of junk that people collect over the years. I definitely wasn’t knocking on administrator’s doors. I definitely wasn’t mobilizing students to do demonstrations, and I wasn’t putting much effort into finding out what was really going on.
What should we do?
If student leaders want to be effective in making a difference in the environment, there are three things we need to do… 1) Get really informed – know everything that the Sustainability Office is working on, know all the new and innovative ideas that are being implemented around the world, etc. 2) Get more organized – let’s not be afraid to have structure if it makes us more effective, pay people for the work they do, have goals and plans, pick one issue and address it from every angle. We’re getting had because we, as environmentalists are too flakey. 3) Get political – lets stop wasting our time on frivolous events where we’re the only ones attending our own events, usually out of pity, and lets start changing the mind’s of the big-wigs at the top.
And a little plug for the AMS’ Sustainability Strategy:
Currently I’m working on developing a sustainability strategy for the AMS. I want it to be big. I want it to be bold. There are a lot of focus groups happening over the next two weeks, so make sure you come and participate and get your ideas to us – get more info on the AMS website.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Issue of the Day: Governance, Pt. 2 - Internal Issues
At the end of the day, UBC is an academic institution. The Board of Governors should be responsive to students’ concerns, needs and priorities. Creating a University Town has changed the campus community (read about the ramifications in Tim’s article about on campus events, alcohol licensing, ACF), and has created many new pressures and responsibilities to balance that are not purely institutional. The question really is, how appropriate is it for the Board of Governors to be playing the role of a municipality? Don’t forget that over half of the BoG reps are appointed by the Province, and are very indirectly accountable to students’ needs or UNA residents’ needs for that matter (though for BoG, there’s a lot more at stake if they don’t get the relationship right with the UNA residents). The reality is, a lot more time, energy, resources and money have gone into the developments of U-Town, and getting this right is a pretty high priority for them. Meanwhile, students are asking a lot of questions…
The Endowment:
Let’s NOT underestimate the importance and benefits that we as students receive from the Endowment – to do otherwise would be premature. The University tries to call us on this all the time. And I always have to quietly explain that the issue isn’t that we don’t understand how the Endowment works, and the benefits we receive. I always say that its really about accountability – students should have a say in how the Endowment is spent on our education, and even how it is invested (from an ethical standpoint), the Endowment should be made much more public and transparent, and we should have a say in how much we're willing to have our campus change for the sake of the Endowment.
Consultation:
Well, I wasn’t around back in the early nineties when someone came up with the brilliant idea of developing fancy houses on every inch of unused land. But, if the consultation process that I have seen over the past five years are any indication, one can only imagine what the consultation process was like when UBC was developing the Official Community Plan, and designing all the Neighbourhood Plans (Darren was around for a lot of these, and he has some interesting stories to tell).
The point is: how much say did students really have when they were making all these decisions about how the University community was going to change. And hey, maybe now that its been a couple years, and we have seen some of the ramifications of these developments, we want to see a few things change from the original agreements.
Consultation with students has improved over the year, in my opinion. After many years of sustained pressure on the University to conduct meaningful consultations, not just handing a design to students and asking them to approve it, but asking us from the beginning what we want. I also think its important that we as students don’t wear out the meaning of this word consultation. The AMS has a definition of what meaningful consultation is all about, and we need to communicate those expectations clearly and consistently to the University and we need to judge consultations on that criteria. It’s not about always getting what we want, its about the intentions of the consultation from the get-go.
Meaningful Representation
Students have seats on a lot of committees and other decision-making bodies at the University. A lot of these committees, however, are advisory in nature. Even at the Board of Governors, the student reps have to work very hard at the beginning to prove themselves, or they will be dismissed and not taken seriously for the rest of the year. A good example of this is the University Town Committee. This was the community advisory committee for all things University Boulevard related before the petition in May. All through last year the committee was giving feedback that the plans were terrible, the designs weren’t working, and the community was not really approving. Of course, the feedback was taken, and the plans went full steam ahead. What more do we need to do? Get 3500 signatures on a petition? Well, I guess so…
We as students need to be careful about the role committees play – are they taking the place of real community consultation? Are they a decision-making body (meaning, the committee has to come to some sort of consensus), or are they advisory? The worst things we can do as students is assume that a committee is just one part of the consultation process, and then realize that that was it! And the AMS is doing a lot of lobbying to get more representation (a GSS seat on BoG, for example), and more institutionalized processes for consultation and decision-making. We need student reps on all levels (Senate, Executive, BoG, AMS Council) to continue this work, and sending out this message to the University.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Issue of the day: Student Senate Caucus, efficacy of.
I admit that I cannot comment on the senate proceedings this past year, as I am now living on another continent. However, if history is an indicator of the present and future, I will allow myself to write a short excerpt on student senator’s and their caucus’ effectiveness.
The Continuity Harp
The majority of the Senate’s members are faculty members and deans, so by virtue of tenure they can be elected to three year terms successively with no limit (life permitting). This contrasts with student senators rather starkly, whose university career often gallantly flickers away after four or five years, and for this reason serve a term which lasts only one year. By no means is it shocking to see a faculty member serve the senate for over a decade, whereas the rare student will stick around for three terms (three years).
Continuity in the student caucus of senate is painful at best, due to the sheer nature of the electoral process: you get elected onto the senate based on experience of university/academic matters (in theory at least), which by definition requires you to have completed a minimum of one year of university, often more.
It has been the case that most student senators happen to be senior students, graduating the next year to go on to other things in other places. Since the Senate meets once a month at best, and its committees meet anywhere between twice a month to not at all, often the most focussed, well prepared items brought forth by student senators require more than one year’s worth of effort. Even with the least amount of cynicism do I dare say that in order to achieve any change, one needs to sit on the senate for more than one term. Often, this does not happen.
We have been lucky in the past to have incredibly thorough senators, who have created, revised, and passed down a monstrous volume of a senate transition package (now probably exceeding 70 pages). The upside of it is that each student senator for the past four years has left their advice and insight. The downside of it is that the incoming senators have to read it, and very few of them actually do for whatever reason.
Quite often, the same cycle is repeated: the first few meetings, no matter how integral the timing of them, receive very little student-driven items on their agenda.
Internal Dynamics
The efficacy of a caucus is determined by the leadership and drive of the group itself. There may be concrete goals a caucus wishes to achieve, and there may be key developments in which students need to take a solid stance. In both cases it is up to the individual senators, under the guidance of the chair, to put in many hours to be well prepared by digging up institutional memory and history to present a clear argument effectively and eloquently.
There are thousands of students in some faculties, and only one designated representative to the senate. Not all senators are elected based on key platform points which they want to see through. Some senators are simply elected on a promise to show up to every meeting and contribute to discussion as well as they can. If this senator happens to find a birthday party more appealing than a senate meeting, she or he may have failed to present a valuable, unique perspective (and vote) on behalf of these students. It is a pet peeve of mine to see some student senators lose interest in a seemingly tame agenda, and subsequently fail to attend a valuable discussion where their presence could have turned the outcome of the vote.
Coherence with the AMS
The relationship with the AMS is murky at best. Why two senators have voting power at AMS council is mysterious to me, their presence at council less so. According to the AMS, it is recommended that their VP External attend the student senate caucus meetings. However, it would make more sense if the (already overworked) VP Academic and University Affairs took on this role. Unfortunately, AMS Council meeting and caucus meeting often overlap, and Senate meetings are scheduled seven years in advance.
There is room for greater coherence between the student council and the senators. Oftentimes it simply requires greater communication, as tiny nuances from one body is lost in a quick report to the other, and vice versa. I see this issue to be prescribed for those rare senators and councillors who go above and beyond their duties, but it can be done over a beer or three.
Overall, I believe a caucus is effective if each member wants to be there, instead of feeling they are obliged to be there. Being a student senator can be intimidating, boring, thankless (no we do not get paid), stressful and exhilarating. If any of those emotions have not been felt, then chances are the individual elected ran for the title and fancy-looking business cards.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Buzzwords: "Council Empowerment"
This post is by Spencer Keys, the AMS President of 05/06. We thank him for his participation. I will be blogging more about the basics of both committee reform and the Strategic Framework later in the week for the new readers out there.
Maayan has politely asked me on a number of occasions to write a guest post for UBC Insiders and while I have normally been content to make snarky comments or longwinded rants when something interesting pops onto my RSS feed, there are two topics that still interest me a great deal and need to be continually reinforced as important; the first is keeping slates out of the AMS (a topic that others are perfectly well equipped to argue but occasionally needs some context from somebody who worked in a slate system) and the second is what I call the “Modernization Project.” Brendan already spoke about a component of this project to modernize the way the AMS is run (portfolio reform) and I would like to talk a bit about a topic that has popped up in the comments section – council empowerment.
(More behind the jump)
The History:
“Council empowerment” has been an issue for as long as I can remember but the nature
of the debate has substantially shifted between the slate-period and the independentperiod. In the past advocates of more Council power were largely doing so in reaction to perceived abuses by the Executive; those advocates were almost entirely composed of people that had run in opposing slates in the previous election or were allied with them. As a former loser I was a vocal member of this group.
Then two things happened. The attempted firing of AMS General Manager Bernie Peets created a consensus that Council should be more active in oversight and the activities of the society, rather than a rubber stamp body. That was followed a month later by the first election without slates, resulting in the first Council in decades without clear party lines dividing the Executive and the Constituency representatives. Council empowerment was no longer something to fear as a witch-hunt in disguise (as it admittedly was when there were slates) but an opportunity to achieve a number of positive organizational goals – Council could now be a training ground for future executives, the forum for long-term goal-setting (preventing lost momentum from executive turnover), and a place of real oversight and review, no longer assumed to be partisan maneuvering.
The Proposals:
In our first year we played around with a lot of ideas – some were adopted, some were rejected, and others were integrated into our long-term recommendations for the future. The AMS Lobby Day is one project that went forward because it was felt that giving councillors meaningful insight into what the Executive does when it lobbies would be good for a host of issues. Having a non-Executive councillor sit on the Executive Committee in an oversight capacity was one we rejected, largely because those meetings happen too frequently and at inconvenient times for a councillor that may have a summer job. However, two long-term projects were to form the basis of future devolution of power: the Strategic Framework and Committee Reform.
The Strategic Framework empowers Council by giving it a standard to measure the activity of the Executive. Specifically it maps four areas – long-term resource planning, creating community at UBC, establishing a transparent and responsive system of governance in the AMS, and engaging constituents (ie. students) in the decisions of the AMS. This means that Council neither has to reinvent the wheel every year and figure out what the AMS should focus on, or have to look to the Executive for leadership on long-term goals.
The committee system was going to be the way to empower Council to act without needing the Executive to lead it by the nose. Without getting into all of the details the idea is as follows: 1) where a given Executive clearly has responsibility for a subject, disband the committee and create an Executive Working Group that reports to that Executive (Safety Committee, Impacts (Sustainability) Committee, Campus Planning and Development Committee), 2) Council has corporate responsibilities as a board of directors so Committees of Council should focus on those responsibilities as well as the long-term goals outlined in the Strategic Plan, 3) Council members should be committee chairs instead of Executives (who will still be busy with their Working Groups), and 4) the entire system should be coordinated through an Agenda Committee that makes sure the committees are working and advises the President on the Council agenda.
It’s an ambitious project, to say the least. While it has been in development for over three years, there are still things to show for the effort, such as the new Oversight Committee. The benefits could be substantial when the project is fully realized – work being done on long-term projects, committee chairs that can be leaders in Council and be groomed for future Executive work, an Executive that is not overburdened with committee administrative work, and a committee system that Councillors feel is valuable and worth their effort, which could lead to them speaking positively about the AMS to others.
Thoughts About the Future:
When today’s candidates speak of council empowerment, is this what they’re talking about? Not all of them, certainly. Some have told me specifically that they think Executive power should stay centralized. And I’m sure that committee reform is not the only way to continue the implementation of the Modernization Project. However, I think the values that exist within the proposal are vital to the development of an effective, professional Council. Council is not empowered by giving them supreme authority, nor are they empowered by preventing them from guiding the agenda. A balance has to be struck where they are given a clear mandate to work on important issues for the AMS and students, and also the support to bring that work to completion. I fear that in some senses the pendulum has swung too far the other way and Council has moved from a role of knee-jerk opposition to one of no discernable role whatsoever. Are they just there to be a sounding board for the Executive or something more? That’s the question at the heart of a phrase like “council empowerment.” A clear path has been set for how to achieve that balance but the AMS has been moving down it very slowly. The words of my dear dad ring true in my head, “Shit or get off the pot.” While former AMS Frosh President Kim
Campbell said an election is no time to debate policy, I disagree. Thoughts?
Issue of the Day: AMS Businesses
The AMS businesses are an important way for the AMS to make money so that we can keep student fees lower. And we do have some of the lowest student union fees in the country (when you take out athletics fees, health & dental, U-Pass, etc, and you’re left with the AMS’ actual operating budget). The businesses last year brought in over $800 000, that’s almost one third of our general operating budget! This money helps to subsidize most of the student services (
There are 14 AMS businesses: the Pit, the Pendulum, PieR Squared, Blue Chip, Bernoulli’s Bagels, the Outpost, the Honour Roll, Burger Bar, the Gallery, the Moon, Copyright, Whistler Lodge, AMS Catering and AMS Conferences. There are also spaces throughout the SUB that we lease to other, non-AMS businesses, such as the Deli, the Tea Shop, Travelcuts, the UBC Health and Wellness Centre, and various fairs (like the markets in the concourse, or the Imaginus poster fair). All of these are integral to our business model, and bring in large sources of income and revenue for the AMS.
These businesses also provide services to students – good, cheap meals at lunch, parties and dancing in the evening, lounge space throughout the day, catering for clubs’ events, etc – they service the needs of students. They also provide jobs – hundreds of part-time employees work in our businesses.
But not everyone agrees that our businesses are always a positive thing. Think about lunch time when the concourse is flooded with vendors at the AMS Marketplace. We rent out tables and space in the SUB to vendors for profit. But this takes away from clubs’ ability to use the space, not to mention the fact that it makes the concourse very crowded.
The future of AMS businesses behind the jump
Throughout the recent consultations on SUB Renew, we have come to realize just how much space in our building has been compromised for our businesses over the years – we’ve lost almost 33% of what was once open space, lounge space, and social space. And many people would criticize the SUB for being a strange food court bizarre, and not really an ideal place to be the social hub of student life.
And there have been times when we’ve had to make tough decisions about our businesses. For example, just this year, Council made the decision to close Snack Attack – the revenues made it hard to justify keeping it, and to boot, we were having great difficulty finding a competent, experienced business manager to replace Robbie, who was moving up to PieR.
Throughout the SUB Renew process, the AMS has also been lobbying the University very actively to ensure that the U-Square developments (located over the old bus loop) meet students’ needs, prioritize student social space, and work closely with the SUB Renew process. The resulting conversation has brought forward a strong proposal to bring some of the AMS businesses out into the Square. The benefits are that they free up space in the SUB, and it safeguards from large, unethical corporations being placed on the Square. One of the challenge is that it is risky, we don’t know how well the space will work for our businesses.
Over the year, our members have told us that they not only want us to be entrepreneurial, but they expect us to be. The question becomes, how do we balance this integral part of our organization with the higher level goals and strategies of the organization, and the needs and wants of students. What kinds of changes to our businesses would be seen as acceptable to our students? At what cost do we make these changes? And ultimately, if we want to see the AMS putting less emphasis and resources into either running our own businesses or renting to vendors, then are we willing to increase our student fees?
Issue of the day: Campus life
Boy, it's hard to write "Issue" posts when there's no candidate platforms four days before voting. Oh wait, the campaign just started today. Never mind that, then.
Last year I spent a lot of time harping on what I see as the slow and steady decline since I first came to UBC in the good old days (read: 2001). Then, it got worse: ACF died this term. In an unexpected decision in November, the ACF executive decided to disconitnue the event indefinitely in the face of declining ticket sales and mounting debt. (See our coverage here, and here.) At first, I chalked it up to external pressures (external to the event, not the University {like See our coverage RCMP, unsupportive faculty, recalcitrant sponsors}) trying to kill the fun. But then I realised that just as important were the internal, student based pressures, too. So that seems as good a framework as any to discuss student life and events.
For reference, I adopt "generally loud, slightly beer-y" as a general definition of student event. I fully understand that not all students events fit this description, but there's just something wonderful about the communities that develop, the memories that are created. I owe a lot of my student politics success to beer gardens, and the fact that they're dying is sad.
External Pressures
These are well-documented. They tend to fall into the following categories:
- UNA and noise complaints about the residents
- Safety and alcohol abuse
- Fewer students engaged on campus generally
- Enhanced RCMP and university enforcement of alcohol rules
- Reduced liquor licenses
Internal Pressures
I've never seen an outpouring of student outrage like the ACF cancellation. There's massive support for the event. But that wasn't enough to save it. Why? Mostly because those responsible for the event didn't want to continue it. It had gone on for a remarkably long time, they said, and it was getting too tiresome to run.
But an interesting thought occurred to me. The AUS Council didn't want to end ACF; the ACF exec did. And there's an interesting point there. Which is that it's the same people who've been running it from year to year. And while the event is tired, so were they. The event was losing money, and these people were losing the energy to fight.
In short, the event was unsustainable.
Now it's not easy for student clubs to have a sustainable existence when there's constant turnover. People come, people go. A great person can be hard to replace, and when a person's involvement takes a year to gestate, they only have a couple years in a leadership role before they move on, to be replaced by a relatively unknown quantity. Similarly, student groups rarely have financial or budgetary expertise; they have to learn the way most of us do, by failing. Unfortunately, they're not usually around the next year to apply their hard-earned knowledge. And finally, they're often more susceptible to pressure mostly because they're often new at the game. And hell, they're students, not full-time event planners.
So why is it relevant? Because the AMS can help. There's a potential positive role for them to play, in terms of facilitating clubs and groups. Some financing options, maybe some financial planning. Ready access to event planning staff. Perhaps a central co-ordinating body for events or a way to leverage networks for publicity. And of course, ye olde lobbying. There are oodles of options. And it's not all bad either: beer gardens, despite the tougher social climate on campus, are persisting. Bzzrgardens.com has made a succesful return under the brew-mastership of SUS councilor Alex Lougheed, and is a great resource.
I imagine some of the candidates or readers might have some ideas. Anybody?
(Then again, maybe this is just on the brain because I'm writing this while watching Old School. Seriously.)
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Issue of the Day: Executive Portfolio Reform
This is the first of a series of daily articles that will highlight “UBC issues.” The Issue of the Day provides an in-depth analysis of a certain topic that may require more background information to understand, or more analysis of the pros and cons and factors to consider. We will try to focus on key issues that come out of the debates and this year’s election, but there are some tried and tested issues too that can’t be ignored.
This year's Exec team. Should their portfolios be shuffled? The debate last year:
The issue came up in last year’s elections, specifically regarding the VP Finance and the VP Administration. At that time, it was suggested that these two portfolios could be merged into a VP Operations (or VP Internal) in order to introduce a new Executive portfolio, such as a VP Student Life, that could address different issues, such as social life, events, and possibly even lobbying the University around student life issues (sorry, I’m a lobbyist at heart…). I wanted to link to an article from last year's election, but after 40 minutes of searching for it, am giving up. Please try to find it though if you want to read more about that debate.
Why does it matter?I personally took quite a liking to the idea of a VP Student Life, but I think it doesn’t illustrate the importance of Executive portfolio reform very well. At U of T and York for example, there is a VP Equity. Imagine dedicating one fifth of the AMS’ highest level of elected representatives solely to the issue of equity and diversity! It would tell a very different story about the priorities of the AMS.
Of course, addressing issues of equity and diversity better (or any others, like student life for that matter), could be done without Executive portfolio reform. But, it wouldn’t have the same effect on lobbying priorities, who gets attracted to the positions (or other aspects of the AMS for that matter), and the type of political work that the portfolios do. Currently the Safety Coordinator works on issues around equity, diversity and social justice, but because the place in the organization that the position fits, its difficult for the position to do effective lobbying. It’s up to the VP Academic, who the Safety Coordinator reports to, to lobby on these issues and bring the work of the Safety Coordinator into the strategic directions of Council and the Executive better.
Creative options...behind the jump. Other options:
You could conceive of a lot of options, besides a VP Operations/VP Student Life reform. I’ve always been a fan of either Tim or Spencer’s idea (sorry, I forget who initially proposed it), to take the VP Academic and VP External portfolios and create a VP Education (fed/prov lobbying and all academic issues) and VP University Affairs (campus development, governance, translink, sustainability, etc). Part of the reasoning behind this option is that the VP External portfolio is often criticized for not having as much work as the other portfolios, particularly if there isn’t an election in a given year. Also, the current division doesn’t always make sense – for example, as VP Academic, I became well-versed in UBC academic issues, but had little to do with bringing that conversation to provincial/federal representatives. Also, I did a lot of work on student housing this year, and brought that issue to the GVRD and municipal representatives, normally reserved for the VP External. Lastly, the VP Academic works on a lot of issues around transit as it relates to internal UBC development, but the VP External works with lobbying translink. These are just examples, keep in mind. But, on the other hand, there are many benefits between intersecting responsibilities between portfolios.
Also, as I’m sure most readers can tell, I'm quite privy to a VP Equity & Diversity (or any other name), as it would do a lot to make the AMS more effective in addressing social justice issues. You could conceive of a VP Sustainability (like at Concordia’s student union), a VP Social Issues or a VP Student Issues. The possibilities are endless. What really matters is that we can be creative about the way the AMS works, and not get stuck in the status quo for no other reason than it’s easy. The AMS Should be thinking forward, always thinking of better ways to structure itself and represent what matters to students.
What other ways do you think the Executive portfolios could be organized? Share your thoughts.
Posts
